congress_law_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds value by listing the categories of data returned, but it does not mention potential failure modes, pagination, or whether full text is included, which would enrich the behavioral picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists key response contents, and specifies the required parameters. There is no fluff or repetition; every clause contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple identifier-based lookup, and annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the description must compensate. It lists several content areas but uses 'including', leaving uncertainty about other returned fields. It also does not clarify how this relates to the many congressional sibling tools, so an agent may still be unsure what exactly to expect or when this is the best choice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description with examples (e.g., '118', 'pub', '274'). The description only restates the requirement for congress number, law type, and law number without adding deeper semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Get detailed information'), a specific resource ('public or private law'), and names concrete content areas (sponsors, CBO cost estimates, committee reports, constitutional authority statement). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling congress_bill_details, which concerns bills rather than enacted laws.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the core use case clear: retrieve details for a specific law given congress, law type, and law number. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with bill-related tools or say when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer that laws differ from bills.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.